Revels v. Norman
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion for relief from judgment 22 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge John M. Bodenhausen on 1/6/17. (CAR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
No. 4:12 CV1903 JMB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment. The
motion is denied.
Petitioner argues that the undersigned lacked jurisdiction to issue a final disposition in
this case, and he demands de novo review of the Court’s judgment by a district judge. He is
mistaken. Both he and respondent expressly consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. No.
19. As a result, the argument is meritless.
Petitioner also attempts to assert a new claim for relief. He says he was never charged in
an indictment, and therefore, the state court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. Petitioner cannot,
however, bring a new claim for habeas relief without first receiving permission from the Court of
Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530 (2005) (new
claims presented in Rule 60(b) motion subject to restrictions on successive petitions).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for relief from judgment [ECF No.
22] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
day of January, 2017.
/s/ John M. Bodenhausen
JOHN M. BODENHAUSEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?